1 2025:CGHC:49231 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1192 of 2025 Abhinav Sharma S/o Shri Manoj Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o LIG 114, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, P.S. Sirgitti, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Mob. No. 9993073164, 7000379392 ... Applicant versus Alka Sharma W/o Shri Abhinav Sharma Aged About 30 Years D/o Shri Kuldeep Sharma, R/o Nehru Chowk Mali Gali, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Mob. No. 9179143665. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC No.110/2025, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 144 of BNSS and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant is the husband of the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.26 10:37:24 +0530 2 respondent. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18.01.2023 at Bilaspur. Ever since the marriage, the respondent has been creating disturbances over trivial matters. She is a disgruntled wife, unwilling to reside with the applicant's family. Despite sincere efforts by the applicant and his family to make her feel welcome and to create a friendly atmosphere, the respondent continued to create chaos over insignificant issues. The respondent deliberately left the applicant’s house of her own volition, without any fault on the part of the applicant or his family. Shortly after the marriage, on 25.12.2023, she called her parents and left the matrimonial home. Although she was requested to return, she again left the house on 27.02.2024, taking along all her belongings, including ornaments and jewellery. The applicant lodged complaints with the police on 26.12.2023 and 02.03.2024 regarding these incidents. It is pertinent to mention that neither the applicant nor his family members have ever demanded dowry from the respondent or her family. The respondent, by her own conduct, is unwilling to reside with the applicant and repeatedly causes unnecessary disturbances, subjecting the applicant to mental cruelty. She refuses to fulfill her marital responsibilities and insists on living independently, contrary to the expectations of a traditionally married Hindu woman. To harass the applicant and his family, the respondent filed a false and frivolous FIR against them at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, registered as Crime No. 74/2024 on 20.11.2024. Along with his reply, the applicant has filed several documents, including the ad-interim anticipatory bail order granted by this Hon’ble Court, the receipt of ₹1,00,000/- deposited for 3 mediation, records of counselling proceedings held at Mahila Thana, and copies of complaints filed with the police. That applicant also humbly submits that presently he is residing at Korba in a rented house and in this regard, an agreement has been executed between the applicant and his landlord. This document clearly shows that applicant has to pay Rs.3,000/- per month rent. Thus, the applicant has no capacity to pay Rs.5,000/- per month interim maintenance to the respondent/wife. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law in the manner in which it ought to have exercised it. The learned Family Court has grossly erred in ignoring the fact that the applicant has already deposited a sum of ₹1,00,000/- in compliance with the order passed by this Court while granting ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. The learned Family Court has erred in overlooking the peculiar facts of the case, particularly that the applicant earns only Rs.15,000/- per month and bears significant financial responsibilities. It is a well-settled principle of law that the amount of maintenance cannot exceed 25% of the husband’s income. Therefore, the quantum of interim maintenance fixed by the learned Court below is contrary to established legal principles. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the essential conditions for grant of interim maintenance are not fulfilled in the present case. The respondent-wife has failed to demonstrate that she is destitute or in dire need of financial assistance. On the contrary, it is the applicant who is financially strained and unable to 4 bear the burden of such a high amount of interim maintenance, thereby being forced to live in hardship. The impugned order is liable to be set aside, and the applicant ought to be exempted from the liability of paying interim maintenance. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the applicant/husband has not, at first glance, submitted any documents regarding the income of the respondent/wife. However, upon perusal of her statement and affidavit, it appears that she is working as a guest lecturer and earns Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, considering all the facts, it seems appropriate that the respondent be awarded Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the applicant. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti